Disposed

Angul United C.C.Bank Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of I.T.

Orissa HC23 Mar 2017WP(C)/4908/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging tax demand notices were disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit TDS deposit evidence under an erroneous PAN number. The bench ordered verification by the DCIT and stayed coercive action pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to produce TDS evidence for verification and stay of coercive action pending verification.

In the present writ applications, challenge has been made to the deman d notice dated 23.01.2017 under Annexure-6 in W.P.(C) Nos.4908 & 4909 of 2017 and Annexure-7 i n W.P.(C) Nos.4911 & 4917 of 2017 for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013- 14 respectively.

It is stated by the petitioner that a wrong PAN number had been obtain ed by it and it was erroneously categorized as a company. It is further stated that on the bas is of such erroneous PAN number, TDS has also been collected and deposited and if the said amo unt is taken into consideration as the payment of the assessee, effectively, no demand will ex ist.

Learned counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that the petitio ner may approach the assessing officer and give evidence of the TDS deposited, under the erron eous PAN number and the matter can be settled by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (O.P.3) on such verification, if the assertion is found to be correct.

In view of the submissions made, we direct the petitioner to produce a ll such evidences of TDS deposit, in the erroneous PAN number and the Deputy Commissioner of I ncome Tax (O.P.3) shall do well to verify the same and give credit for the same amount, if fou nd to be creditable to the petitioner. We further direct that till a decision is taken by the Deputy Commissioner, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for collection o f the aforesaid demand and the attachment for the aforesaid amount shall stand vacated subject to verification of the TDS payment said to have been made.

.. I.Mahanty, J. ....... B iswajit Mohanty, J. Misc. Case Nos.4291, 4292, 4293 & 4299 of 2017 03. 23.03.2017 In view of the above order, the present Misc. Cases ar ising out of the aforesaid writ applications are disposed of.

Angul United C.C.Bank Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of I.T.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angul United C.C.Bank Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of I.T.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabitri Kumari Mallick Vs State of Orissa

M/S.Hanumant Construction Pvt.Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

M/S.D.D.Builders Ltd. Vs Addl.Commissioner of Sales Taxappeal

M/S.K.J.S.Ahluwalia Vs State of Odisha

Commnr.of Income Tax Vs S.Chanchala Combines

Commnr. Income Tax Vs O.R.H.D.C.Ltd.